Questions on Protestant Salvation

[Porknpie]

I’m sorry but I don’t believe that. You cannot tell me that you are literally eating flesh in your mouth and drinking blood when you take communion. And how did Jesus give the disciples his actual flesh and blood if he hadn’t died yet? Also, he used a lot of symbolism in his teaching. Remember when he told the Jews to “destroy this temple, and in 3 days I will rebuild it”?? And they mocked him and were angry because they took it literally? He really was talking about himself. Symbolism.

Cabo,

I assume that you believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and that he taught his disciples both before his resurrection (3 years) and after (40 days). And that he sent the Holy Spirit, to guide the apostles to all Truth. The apostles then taught their successors, Bishops through the laying of hands. And the Church numbers grew greatly, “guided by the Holy Spirit”.

So there we have the early Church, started by Jesus Christ with the apostles taking over and their successors taking over and so on.

Here’s what the early Church said about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Remember, this Church took the oral teachings from Jesus himself, eventually put some teachings into writing and some of those writings become the canon of scripture in ~405 AD. No where do you see the early church believing “symbolically”.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

Cabo, scripture says to hold fast to what you have been taught, both by spoken word and by what is written. The belief of Jesus being really present, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist has existed in the Church, since the time of Christ at the Last Supper. To interpret scripture differently, 1600 to 2000 years later is to invent a “new gospel” … which scripture warns us not to do.

 

[guanophore]

I  disagree.  I know, you're shocked.  :)  But what then of the man who hung next to Jesus on the cross?  Recall what he said to Jesus.  "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."  And Jesus replied, "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise".

Well, we know that Jesus did not go that day to paradise, don’t we?

So, perhaps it can be understood as “I tell you today, you will be with me…”

This criminal did NOT say, Jesus I repent of all the sins I ever committed, please forgive me! All he said was “remember me” and bam, it was done. Because he acknowledged in his heart that Jesus was King and he knew in his heart he was a sinner.

He did say Luke 23:41
“And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.”

Which shows he accepted responsibility for his sins and the just punishment he was receiving. He also did a “good work” by chastizing his companion for mocking the Lord. Whenever we confront evil we do a good deed. We also don’t know whether this man was baptized by John, or by one of the the Apostles. He might have been a recent convert, who was facing his consequences after he came to the faith. Or, he may have received John’s baptism then gone back to his thieving, got caught, and realized his error in prison. My point is that we don’t know the story of his faith and conversion.

That my friend, is why you need ONLY a repentant heart and faith in Jesus Christ. All the other Catholic regulations and rules are nothing but legalism. Good intent possibly, but legalism nonetheless.

This statement shows how far your faith tradition has drifted from what the Apostles believed and taught. From the birth of the Church, the “Catholic regulations and rules” have been taught and practiced by the successors of the Apostles.

Acts 2:42
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

The Apostles teaching are all the "regulations and rules’ as you call them. In the NT, this is a lifestyle referred to as “The Way”. The prayers are the liturgy that is practiced the same today as it was at the birth of the Church.

We are not under law, but under grace. However, this is not an excuse for lawlessness. If you wish to reject the way of life that Jesus commanded, that is your choice, but to pass it off as “nothing but legalism” is grossly ignorant, and shows a lack of experience in reading the Scriptures.

Another thing, and I’m going to put it bluntly. The Catholic church does not hold all the answers.

This is not a problem, since the CC never claimed to “hold all the answers”. She holds what was given to her by the Apostles. She holds the fullness of faith, and all that is required to lead the flock of God to heaven.

The Bible holds the answers

The reason there are so many answers in the Scriptures is because the New Testament was written by, for, and about the Catholic faith. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

Nevertheless, the Bible was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.

The Bible holds the answers and the Bible is the ONLY thing we should be looking to for complete truth.

You will not find this concept anywhere in scripture, because it is a modern innovation that is actually contrary to what the Bible teaches.

On the contrary, the Scriptures point to the Church;

1 Tim 3:15
5 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

 

[guanophore]

The New Testament makes no mention of Purgatory.

I think we must have very different New Testaments, Cabo, because the one I use does have mention, and it also is full of commandments to follow “rules and regulations”.

After Jesus died on the cross we have no reason to believe there is any place other than Heaven or Hell left to go to.

Actually, it was directly after He died on the cross where we have proof that another state of existence is real.

Also, the truth is God’s Word.

Yes, it is. God’s Word was given to the Church in two forms, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture. They both complement one another.

Why does everyone keep referring to Catholic teaching as the real truth?

Because it is God’s Word, placed in the Church, and preserved infallibly there by the Holy Spirit.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers.

The Word of God that was deposited in the Church has never ceased to be at work in the believers.

I would be naive to think that everything the Protestant churches taught was Biblical.

Indeed!

The Bible is the only solid truth we have and anything else is doctrine by which Priests and Pastors alike can make mistakes in teaching.

The Holy Spirit does not make mistakes, so all doctrine that is preserve by Him is infallible.

 

[guanophore]

Really. :tsktsk: Isn’t that why your ancient “holy ones” (lol) burned the Protestants at the stake? For being heretics?

No. Saints did not burn anyone at the stake. Certain temporal rulers, claiming to be Catholic, believed that heresy was also a rejection of the Law of the Land (beyond unpatriotic). They were considered traiters to the nation.

There were also Church officials to committed torture and execution because they believed it was the right thing to do. The CC does not teach this, either.

What you are doing is the same as saying that no one should believe or follow the Teachings of Jesus because of the actions of Judas.

Yep, I’d love to follow that teaching.

Instead of finding fault with calumnies that you have heard about Catholicism, why not have a discussion with us about what the Catholic Church really teaches? You can find these teachings in the Catechism. You will not find any teachings about killing unbelievers or heretics in there.

 I But for scriptures sake...the Bible is what teaches me.  I actually read it.  Over and over.  :)

This is good. However, you are reading with anti-Catholic lenses. Perhaps you will consider reading it through another pair?

And my "man-made ideas" come from the Apostle Paul.

No, they don’t. They come from taking the writings of Paul out of context, and using passages to create doctrines, rather than understand what is written in light of the whole message.

I don’t back my “ideas” up with what my church says because I don’t agree with them on everything.

Have you ever considered that Scripture says there is One Faith, and One Church? Has it occurred to you that it is not up to you to decide what is agreeable or not, but that there is One Truth?

I am not a brainwashed robot.

Perhaps not. Perhaps you are just spewing out this robotic anti-Catholic brainwash.

It is a good sign that you are here on CAF. It means that you might be willing to explore the possibility that you are wrong.

I read the Bible and test what people say to it's teachings and if they don't line up, I don't accept the teachings.

What you are saying is that they don’t line up with your own perceptions of what you think the teachings say. You have become your own Pope. And your ideas are a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

I am not perfect and I don’t know everything but I am trying to learn.

May God richly bless your efforts.

If I sound angry it’s because I am. Shame on you for speaking to someone who is trying to understand different doctrine in the hopes of finding unity.

I know this was not directed to me, and frankly I am not sure what you found so provocative, but you have come across quite rejecting of the Holy Faith that was passed down to us from the Apostles, so I am not sure that you have much room to “shame” anyone.

You have also not come across at all as if you are trying to “understand different doctrine”, but rather, to tell us that what we have received is “wrong”.

And finally, you will not find “unity” here with our modern innovations and additions to the Apostolic faith. Unity occurs through preserveation of the Truth, not abandonment of it.

You remind me of the Pharisees that Jesus rebuked for being pious. Perhaps you should spend time on your knees with Jesus and listen to the Holy Spirit regarding these matters.

Perhaps, but more humility will not change the fact that Jesus established only ONE CHURCH and that it was, and is, Catholic. This is an historical fact, and not a matter of pride.

 

[PRmerger]

That my friend, is why you need ONLY a repentant heart and faith in Jesus Christ.

This is a man-made tradition that you’ve been duped into believing, Cabo. There is NOTHING in Scripture that says you need ONLY (anything) to be saved.

Rather, see what the Scriptures say we need to be saved.

This is how Catholics believe that we are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

 

[aidanbradypop]

This is a man-made tradition that you’ve been duped into believing, Cabo. There is NOTHING in Scripture that says you need ONLY (anything) to be saved.

Rather, see what the Scriptures say we need to be saved.

This is how Catholics believe that we are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

Wonderful use of Scripture to show the Church’s teachings! Thank PR

 

[guanophore]

My personal relationship I have with Christ in Holy Communion (the Eucharist) that we catholics celebreate is the MAIN reason I love the Catholic church so much!!! That hug you wish to give Christ… I can experience it here and NOW ! in the eucharist (if you look into anything catholic…loook into the teaching on the eucharist!) .

Thanks But now I have to ask you another question. How does the Eucharist do that for you? We take communion too but we take it like Jesus did in the Bible.

No, you do not do it like Jesus did in the Bible. You say this because you are reading the Bible passage outside it’s context, and have lost the original meaning. The Eucharist in the Bible occurs in the context of Passover, and it cannot be understood outside of it.

It’s blessed and then we take it in remembrance of Him and what He did for us on the cross. It is symbolism, not literal. (To us of course. )

It is curious, I think, that everything in the Bible can be taken literally until it sounds too Catholic.

You might want to consider reading some of the things early Christians wrote, to shed some light on how they understood what the Apostles believed and taught.

I don’t understand at all how you can read that portion of scripture and take from it that when Jesus said, (and I’m paraphrasing here), “Take this and eat it. This is my body broken for you.”] That He meant, this is literally my body and literally my blood. That would be gross.

You know, your reaction is exactly the same one that unbelievers have had since the first time He brought up that subject.

Lol But seriously, can you tell me where that comes from?? Or is it just the different ways we interpret it? Cause you can’t honestly say that when your eating the wafer, your like, “Mmm, Jesus body!” Lol

It came to us from the Apostles. You are right, we understand what is written differently because Catholics read the Scriptures in the light of the faith that produced them. You read them separated from that faith, so you understand them largely according to modern heresies from which you have become infected.

I’m sorry, I hope you don’t think I’m mocking it cause I’m not. Just trying to add a little humor. Communion is very special to me too but I honestly don’t believe God made us to be a bunch of weirdos who eat their Savior’s body literally.

1 Cor 3:18-19
18 Do not deceive yourselves. If you think that you are wise in this age, you should become fools so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

Well, if we are “a bunch of wierdos” it is for Christ.

 ....since this is your thread...and you befriended the heathen! :p )

Catholics don’t consider other Christians heathens, just those who have been separated from most aspects of the faith.

Most Protestants are very committed with the little bit of the faith they do have.

 

[guanophore]

  I'm sorry but I don't believe that.  You cannot tell me that you are literally eating flesh in your mouth and drinking blood when you take communion.

On the contrary, we HAVE to tell you that, because to say otherwise would to be forsake the faith that was entrusted to us. Of course, it is resurrected flesh and blood…

Jesus held up the bread, and said “this IS MY BODY”. And the cup, THIS IS MY BLOOD". ARe you calling HIm a liar?

Besides, we don’t “take” it, we “receive” it.

 And how did Jesus give the disciples his actual flesh and blood if he hadn't died yet?

This is why everyone was so confused, as people often are when they hear a prophetic word. They did not understand it until after His resurrection.

 Also, he used a lot of symbolism in his teaching.  Remember when he told the Jews to "destroy this temple, and in 3 days I will rebuild it"??  And they mocked him and were angry because they took it literally?  He really was talking about himself.  Symbolism.  :)

No, He was LITERALLY talking about the temple of His own body.

 

[MichaelHowling]

that’s a good point…that being the eucharist is His ressurected body!

Which gives us more reason to accept that he was able to take on the essence of bread and wine…because a ressurected body can do AMAZING things like get into a room where the door was locked as when He appeard to His disciples after His death.

I also have another scripture verse for you Cabo:

Luke 24:25-35

Luke 24:25-35

After his death…He meets his friends on the road to Emmaus

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

He disapeard from their sight when He broke the bread…why? because they held Him in their hands when they were given the bread!

 

[guanophore]

Cabo, scripture says to hold fast to what you have been taught, both by spoken word and by what is written. The belief of Jesus being really present, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist has existed in the Church, since the time of Christ at the Last Supper. To interpret scripture differently, 1600 to 2000 years later is to invent a “new gospel” … which scripture warns us not to do.

Excellent post.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I love the point that was made about fundamental Protestant denominations that preach literal translation but if it becomes “catholic” teaching then Christ was speaking symbolically. that’swhat happens when people translate Scripture their own way. They talk about living biblically but only live the parts that fit their desire. We Catholics are guilty of that as well sometimes.

We can throw all the scripture we want at Cabo and other Protestants but if they interpret scripture differently, then where does that get us? It befomes a never-ending “he said she said” battle of wills lol. We present our beliefs and pray that the HS reveals the rest. Right?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Unrepented mortal sin at death = Hell! Period! No exceptions! Includes everyone!

 

[PRmerger]

Wonderful use of Scripture to show the Church’s teachings! Thank PR

Well, thanks.

I will amend that the “ONLY” that Scriptures do proclaim is that we are saved by Christ ONLY. And this is what the Church has proclaimed for 2000 years.

Of course, that “ONLY” needs to be understood with some nuance. “ONLY” Christ cannot mean Christ without His Body, the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

They talk about living biblically but only live the parts that fit their desire.

Indeed.

Here’s a question I love to pose to non-Catholic Christians:
Do you believe: if it’s not in the Bible it’s permitted?

OR

if it’s not in the Bible it’s forbidden.

Typically, it will depend upon the particular practice. If their church practices it, then they will say, “There is nothing in the Bible that says we can’t do this!” (for example: have a wedding on a beach).

If their church does not practice it, then they will say, “There is nothing in the Bible that says you can do this!” (for example: pray the rosary).

They pick and choose which way to apply that paradigm based on their own particular desires.

NOPE. Can’t do that. It should be pointed out that they can’t have both paradigms. Either they live by: if it’s not in the Bible it’s forbidden. OR if it’s not in the Bible it’s permitted.

 

[aidanbradypop]

PR

I had a Baptist tell me once that the Holy Rosary is the work of the Devil. I replied that Elizabeth would beg to differ. He looked confused so I explained that the Rosary comes straight from scripture and cited the verses. Wouldn’t ya know his reaction was just as you described…“the bible doesn’t tell use to pray the rosary.” I stated with a warm and loving smile that he was right and thank God that we have sacred tradition. Lol

 

[jpink1019]

He believes his faith in Christ will save him. Does it?

This was the whole point in church while growing up Protestant.
This was emphasized, faith in Christ.
That God sent his son and through faith in Christ alone we have atonement for our sins.

So… there are my thoughts.
I haven’t looked through the rest of the posts but this will most likely be my next step.
To read alll the posts.

This question of yours strikes me so strange…
Isn’t this the point to Christianity?
Christ died to atone for our sins. The only way to the Father is through Jesus.

 

[mitex]

This was the whole point in church while growing up Protestant.
This was emphasized, faith in Christ.
That God sent his son and through faith in Christ alone we have atonement for our sins.

So… there are my thoughts.
I haven’t looked through the rest of the posts but this will most likely be my next step.
To read alll the posts.

This question of yours strikes me so strange…
Isn’t this the point to Christianity?
Christ died to atone for our sins. The only way to the Father is through Jesus.

I’m in full agreement with you as an Evangelical. d RCIA.

I want a personal life transforming relationship with Jesus Christ. I might add Catholics consider protestants Christian because they preserved baptism and marriage. Are some of you guys saying Protestants are Christians but can’t get into heaven?

 

[PRmerger]

This was the whole point in church while growing up Protestant.
This was emphasized, faith in Christ.
That God sent his son and through faith in Christ alone we have atonement for our sins.

So… there are my thoughts.
I haven’t looked through the rest of the posts but this will most likely be my next step.
To read alll the posts.

This question of yours strikes me so strange…
Isn’t this the point to Christianity?
Christ died to atone for our sins. The only way to the Father is through Jesus.

Amen!

Everything you posit is very Catholic, jpink!

Faith in Christ alone--not in any idol, is what atones for our sins, when we repent and confess.

 

[Porknpie]

Originally Posted by Cabo30
The Bible holds the answers and the Bible is the ONLY thing we should be looking to for complete truth.

Cabo,

Show us where in scripture you are getting this? It must be in scripture for it to be true otherwise you are following a man-made theology.

And consider :

• that in 100AD, 200AD, 300AD, 350AD …there was no bible.
• Christ himself taught his disciples and they taught their successors (beginning of Oral Tradition)
• Jesus said that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in all truth “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth…” (John 16)
• St. Paul said that “the Church is the bulkwark and foundation of Truth” (1 Timothy 3)
• St. Paul said “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thessalonians)… that’s exactly what Catholic’s do…

Pork

 

[Michael_Francis]

*http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/Off-Topic--Alert.gif
Thread is drifting from its topic, which is “Questions on Protestant Salvation”, and not Sola Scriptura or anything else.

If you want to discuss/debate something else then open a new thread on it.

Citations will be issued for any future off topic posts.http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/nun_slapping_ruler_hg_clr.gif*